Most reliable single-stack 9mm sub-compact?

This is a discussion on Most reliable single-stack 9mm sub-compact? within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by C hawk Glock
You guys are turning this into a have and have not battle. I have never said that high dollar ...

You guys are turning this into a have and have not battle. I have never said that high dollar guns are more reliable, my point is why do people buy a poorly made firearms when there is such reliability and quality for not much more money. The point is save a little. In most cases you get what you pay for. I don't care if this sets well for you or not, it's a fact. I see this even more with AR15's as they will buy a bushmaster, and if they added a little more cash they could have a Colt or Bravo Company.

No one is turning it into a have or have not battle. You are the one who said that Keltecs and Rugers are budget brand guns (#47). You are now saying that high dollar guns are not more reliable. So......

I agree with your statement that in general you get what you pay for, but we also have to consider that it is relative to what you need. I could go spend 800 dollars on a top of the line DELL laptop to only use word processor and surf the net. I could also go out and pay 400 dollars for a Toshiba that does that same thing perfectly.

It simply seemed to me that your statements insinuated that by buying a keltec or ruger you were not putting your family's lives first. I apologize if I misunderstood.

I actually find the fit and finish on my PF9 to be pretty good. After reading about people complaining of it, I just see no real evidence myself. To tell you the truth, I feel like a sucker having paid $800 for my Kahr MK9 that is also a single stack 9mm. I guess its technically nicer than the PF9, but it works no better for the extra $500+. If I had to do it over, I'd have just bought (2) PF9's and still had $240 left in my pocket, lol. I bought that Kahr back when I had a tendency to think that spending more money meant I was getting more quality. I've since seen the error of my ways on that... there are no absolutes.

I can only speak for the lc9 as I haven't had the chance to fire any of the competition. I have about 700 rds through mine so far. I too was I initially put off by he trigger pull but I noticed that once I started practical training with it, you don't notice it when it's go time. The purpose of the gun is close range self defense. It is very reliable, and serves it's purpose to a tee. If you are looking for a range gun with a perfect trigger to put 2" groups at 25 yards, you may want something else. If you want a small, reliable, inexpensive piece to protect yourself, you can't go wrong with the LC9.

I owned and carried a Kel Tec PF9 and never had a problem with it except I did not like it.

To much gun for pocket carry and not enough gun to justify IWB carry in my opinion.

Now carry a Glock 36 45acp 6+1 single stack carried in IWB and it just feels right and is Glock dependable.
Instead of single stack 9mm why not carry a single stack 45acp with just a small amount of difference in size and weight.

I'll give you cost of ammo, but neither the PF9 or LC9 are exactly range queens either. The PF9 is slightly worse, but I would consider both a punishment to shoot overall. I've shot the 36 and IMHO it had less recoil than the small/light 9's. The snappiest gun I've ever shot was a bodyguard .380

A couple months ago, I got to the local range to shoot for the first time in about a year (used to live in OH where the ranges were A LOT cheaper and also had more time). Walked right up with my carry gun (Kahr CW9) which I haven't serviced in as long all the while carrying it that whole year (pocket carry with Desantis Nemesis). 100% of my carry ammo (2 mags) and the two boxes of ball ammo ran through flawlessly.

Of course I went home and gave it a complete cleaning and lubing. I trust that gun in all situations.

P.S. all shots went into roughly a 5-inch pattern (I'm not the greatest shot but that is certainly accurate enough) with rapid fire which included the first two mags of hollow points.

I'll give you cost of ammo, but neither the PF9 or LC9 are exactly range queens either. The PF9 is slightly worse, but I would consider both a punishment to shoot overall. I've shot the 36 and IMHO it had less recoil than the small/light 9's. The snappiest gun I've ever shot was a bodyguard .380

This is interesting, I had a LCP and could not stand the recoil. It also had feed problems but got rid of it and got a Bodyguard. To me the BG was so much easier on my old hands. It is interesting how one gun can be so different to different people. Glad you found a gun that you can trust and shoot well because in the end that is the most important thing, not that we all agree on what is the BEST gun.
Frank

Yeah I think it has everything to do with the size and shape of your hands, thickness and length of your fingers, etc. I rented a bodyguard 380 and I can honestly say its the only gun I ever fired once and regretted putting a handful of other rounds into, lol. It just stung my particular hands horribly, which was too bad... its a neat little package. My TCP is much easier on my hands, but I still don't want to put more than 25-50 rounds through it at a time. The PF9 destroys the web of my hand after a couple mags, but its a carry gun, so when I run it I just wear shooting gloves. Figure if its ever used in SD I won't notice...

No one is turning it into a have or have not battle. You are the one who said that Keltecs and Rugers are budget brand guns (#47). You are now saying that high dollar guns are not more reliable. So......

I agree with your statement that in general you get what you pay for, but we also have to consider that it is relative to what you need. I could go spend 800 dollars on a top of the line DELL laptop to only use word processor and surf the net. I could also go out and pay 400 dollars for a Toshiba that does that same thing perfectly.

It simply seemed to me that your statements insinuated that by buying a keltec or ruger you were not putting your family's lives first. I apologize if I misunderstood.

Hi,

Thank you for the response, but I still don't think you get it. You are mistaking my point about saving money for a higher quality/reliable firearm with equating it to high price. This is not the case. For example, I don't care how much money you spend you will not get a more reliable pistol then a Glock Gen 3 or S&W M&P. The point is that there is a price level that tends to gain you reliability. I clearly don't understand when folks save a buck to not reach that point of reliability and then gloat about it. For the record the reliability issue I have with budget brands was never geared towards Ruger, I have my own personal taste in which I tend to not like them, but they are reliable. This comment is geared more towards Keltec and Taurus which can be very much hot and cold.

With regards to the comment about putting family lives first, take it as you may. There are several choices we all make on a daily basis with regard to safety and our family welfare. If I have the choice I would like to stack the odds in my favor over saving a buck. If you have an issue with that then so be it, as we will agree to disagree.

Just buy what you can afford and test it out, thats all that matters. Its all BS until the gun proves itself, no matter which brand is on the side. For some people, the difference in price between a Taurus and Glock may mean not feeding the family for a month or so. I have not seen a high enough percentage of failures to straight up tell someone to not eat for a month, or to just not bother to defend themselves if they can't afford more gun. With enough research its not too difficult to identify the clunkers in a manufacturer's line-up, thereby reducing your odds of having issues. In my case, the money wasn't a concern, it was the size. There isn't a Glock or M&P pistol that I know of that is as small as some of the cheaper compact 9s that can be pocket carried. I wish they would do something about that. Glad to see Beretta giving it a stab (and with a $475 MSRP to boot). If I could choose, I'd have the LC9 I sold over the Keltec for the simple reason I like Ruger firearms. However, a mag disconnect can get you killed, and I'm not doing surgery on a new gun to remove it either. Easier to just get a different gun, ie, the PF9. They both have performed the same for me, flawlessly.

Thanks again to all. Just looked up the Sig P239 and it's heavier than my XD-9 SC.

I was able to dry fire a Walther PPS this afternoon and really liked the trigger, very similar to the XD-9, and it fits my hand well. It's a hair longer than the XD-9, but considerably thinner and noticeably lighter. I like the mag release. My local gun shop has ordered one.

As much as I like the LC9, and think I could get used to the trigger, it's SO different from my XD-9 that I can see the difference between the two being harder to adapt to (especially under stress) than if it were my only gun--the same reason I wouldn't want a DA/SA trigger.

One thing I've learned through this thread is that you really have to put a lot of rounds through a gun to test its dependability, so I plan to do that with the XD -- and the PPS if it happens to find its way into my house. I don't know where I read it, but on some gun forum I saw a statement by a man who said "NOW I understand why women need so many pairs of shoes!" Now I understand why my friend Bill has so many guns.